November 18, 2008
Five Surprises From Election 2008
By
Reid Wilson
This year saw an historic election, one that is bound to leave pundits and prognosticators scratching their heads for years to come. In the course of covering such a frenetic and frenzied campaign, here are the five things which caught many by surprise:
1. Turnout. Or lack thereof. Throughout the primaries, voter interest in the election was at record highs. More than 230,000 people turned out for Iowa's Democratic caucuses, far higher than even the 170,000 the most optimistic internal projections -- those of Barack Obama's campaign -- had called for. Election officials warned of massive lines, especially given the early and absentee turnout, and respondents told pollsters they were hugely excited to turn out.
In the end, about 127 million votes were cast. That's a lot of ballots - the most number of raw votes ever cast in a presidential contest. But it was just about five million votes more than were cast during the 2004 election, and below even John McCain's internal projections of 130 million voters. Black voters and younger voters, two groups Obama was supposed to inspire to record levels of turnout, performed largely the same as they did in previous elections; 13% of the electorate was African American (up from 11% in 2004) and 18% were between the ages of 18-29 (up from 17% in 2004).
James Carville once declared that the name for candidates who rely on the youth vote is "loser." Obama's team won by expanding their margins among other groups and by adding blacks and younger voters as, in their words, the icing on the cake rather than the foundation upon which their victory would rise or fall. Still, the notion that older voters turn out in disproportionately higher numbers than younger voters remains accurate.
2. McCain Stuck Around. The economy is in crisis, the war in Iraq is still hugely unpopular, and the incumbent Republican president is less popular than a used-car salesman. By all historical measures, there should have been no way John McCain would win 46% of the popular vote and 21 states (He still holds a small lead in Missouri, though neither candidate has claimed those electoral votes).
The only times presidential candidates have truly decimated their opponents in recent years is when those opponents are completely outmatched. Obama won big, and 365 electoral votes proves that, but McCain was seen as a potentially effective commander in chief as well, making a really dramatic landslide -- say, breaking 60% -- impossible.
Obama took 68% of the electoral college vote, a higher percentage than George W. Bush ever won and the highest since Bill Clinton's 379-vote win in 1996. But the narrower popular vote margin should demonstrate that, far from being a post-partisan environment, the country remains polarized between the two parties. Just about 45% of voters will back their party's presidential nominee, leaving 10% in the middle to decide the race. The problem for Republicans, however, is that those 10% have voted overwhelmingly with Democrats on the presidential level this year and on the congressional level the past two cycles.
3. Liberal Isn't Scary. Throughout the year, Republicans employed a tried and true tactic: Call Democrats liberals, associate them with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and wait for voters to get scared and default to the Republican candidate. The only trouble is, this year that tactic didn't work.
Republicans take heart in the fact that some Democrats who beat them, like Montgomery Mayor Bobby Bright or Mississippi Rep. Travis Childers, would be comfortably at home in the GOP conference. They argue that the election of such conservative Democrats still augers well for the GOP's more conservative message.
But Republicans went after both Bright and Childers for associating with Pelosi, with Barack Obama, the Senate's most liberal member as ranked by National Journal, and with any number of Democrats farther left than Bright or Childers. But Bright and Childers, among many others, won anyway. GOP strategists privately worry that the very word "liberal," which used to be a scarlet letter for any Democrat, is losing its effectiveness as a political scare tactic.
4. Chris Shays Lost. Republican Rep. Christopher Shays was just six years removed from winning 64% of the vote in his wealthy Connecticut district. He survived two strong challenges from businesswoman Diane Farrell, including one in 2006 by just 11,000 votes, by establishing himself as a brand who superceded party labels. Despite his unpopular support for the war in Iraq -- at last count, he had traveled to the country more times than any other member of Congress -- he was good for his district on economic issues, voting in favor of the bailout legislation in a move that would have been unpopular in most other districts.
But Shays succumbed to activist and businessman Jim Himes by a narrow 51%-48% margin, washing away the last House Republican in the New England. The loss signified not the breadth of the Democratic wave, but the depth, demonstrating that sometimes currents are strong enough even to sweep out well-positioned incumbents. It wasn't as strong in other Obama strongholds like Washington State or even Illinois, where moderate Reps. Dave Reichert and Mark Kirk survived rematches with well-funded challengers to keep their seats an additional two years, but Shays' loss should put a lot of other incumbents, of both parties, on notice.
To be fair, the result was not wholly shocking. Many expected Shays to go down in what is becoming an increasingly liberal district. But Shays' defeat shows that even someone prepared for a tough race who has spent years building his reputation within the district can go down to defeat. Republicans are going to have to re-establish a foothold in the New England before they can seriously challenge for the Speaker's gavel.
5. Democrats Are Still On Offense. The three districts mentioned above -- Connecticut's Fourth, Alabama's Second and Mississippi's First - were all captured by Democrats this year, two years after the first wave election swept many Republicans out of office. Instead of making gains in GOP territory they'd lost in 2006, Republicans actually lost more seats, and more states. And Democrats may not be done yet.
John McCain won his home state of Arizona by about nine points, and without McCain on the ballot, Democrats will target the Copper State in four years (More evidence the state is changing: Republicans held a 6-2 advantage in the state's House delegation before the 2006 elections. That delegation now has five Democrats and three Republicans). Democrats just missed winning congressional seats in Florida, Kentucky, Missouri and several other states, giving them more chances in two years. And the 2010 Senate landscape looks bright, with more GOP-held seats in Democratic crosshairs than vice versa.
Republicans will have a much better landscape in 2010, with more of their territory in play and the albatross of President Bush well behind them. But they will remain at a financial disadvantage and, should the economy rebound as expected during the first half of 2010, they may be at a political disadvantage as well. There is virtually no chance of another twenty-seat pickup for Democrats, but surprisingly, there may be no chance for a twenty-seat Republican pickup either.
Reid Wilson is an associate editor and writer for RealClearPolitics. He can be reached at
reid@realclearpolitics.com
